Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 23 March 2017 23:42.
Reuters, “Polish PM draws link between London attack and EU migrant policy”, 23 Mar 2017:
Poland’s prime minister drew a link on Thursday between an attack in London targeting the British parliament and the European Union’s migrant policy, saying the assault vindicated Warsaw’s refusal to take in refugees.
Poland’s Prime Minister Beata Szydlo holds a news conference at the end of a European Union leaders summit in Brussels, Belgium, March 10, 2017. REUTERS/Yves Herman
Five people, including the attacker, were killed and about 40 injured on Wednesday after a car ploughed into pedestrians near the British parliament. Police believe the attack was “Islamist-related”, but have given no details about the attacker, who they say was acting alone.
Poland’s right-wing, eurosceptic government has refused to accept any of the 6,200 migrants allocated to it under the European Union’s quota scheme that is designed to share the burden of taking in the large numbers of migrants and refugees who have come to Europe over the past two years.
“I hear in Europe very often: do not connect the migration policy with terrorism, but it is impossible not to connect them,” Polish Prime Minister Beata Szydlo told private broadcaster TVN24.
Earlier this week the EU’s migration commissioner, Dimitris Avramopoulos, on a visit to Warsaw, warned member states against failing to host refugees to help alleviate pressure on frontline states bearing the brunt of arrivals across the Mediterranean.
“The commissioner should concentrate on what to do to avoid such acts as yesterday in London ... Poland will not succumb to blackmail such as that expressed by the commissioner,” Szydlo said.
“The commissioner is coming to Warsaw and trying to tell us: you have to do what the EU decided, you have to take these migrants .... Two days later another terrorist attack in London occurs,” she said.
The leader of Szydlo’s ruling Law and Justice party (PiS), Jaroslaw Kaczynski, said back in 2015 that refugees could bring diseases and parasites to Poland, which is staunchly Roman Catholic and has very few Muslim immigrants.
The migrant issue is just one of several over which Poland is at odds with the EU.
Also on Thursday Szydlo said Poland might not accept a declaration EU leaders are due to endorse in Rome this month that will chart the bloc’s course after Britain leaves unless it addresses issues Warsaw considers crucial.
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 02 March 2017 11:07.
RT, a propaganda organ of “Active Measures,” is pressuring a private London club to have open doors liberalism. Cirque le Soir nightclub in Soho has a policy standard for private clubs, of not allowing-in groups of unaccompanied males. When confronted with a group of black male athletes, a bouncer for the club apparently observed their demeanor and added what was perhaps a code-reason for discrimination - “too urban.” RT jumped all over that for being racial profiling, racial stereotyping and therefore “racist”.
Nevertheless, if “too urban” was indeed a code word for a black group with a dangerous profile, it would merely be a practical observation and precaution to take to discriminate against them. Young black males, especially in groups (including wealthy professional athletes) are statistically far more violent; and the club was exercising what should be its right as a free and private club to deny servitude, to protect its interests and protect is clients.
The freedom of London clubs to defend not only their businesses, but their patrons against profiles known to be violent and otherwise destructive is apparently of no concern to RT and Active Measures. This is a swift route to the destruction of our native European EGI and the naive among us who lack meaningful experience of blacks in numbers.
The kind of liberal “anti-racist” propaganda that RT is engaging-in goes back to the days of The Soviet Union - it put such pressure on The US to atone for its history of slavery that it empowered liberals to destroy untold numbers of innocent Whites, attempting by their sanctioned means (The Constitution and The Golden Rule), compelled by their politicians and (((those coercing))) their politicians to force them to try to live the impossible - “Thou Shalt Not Discriminate”, “Thou Shalt Not have senses and defend yourself”, “Thou Shalt Enter into involuntary contract” - “thou” must live pure in pure servitude, fresh White prey: un-hypocritical, ideologically living-up to the pure banner of “freedom and liberty for all” - non-discrimination: this has led basically to the destruction of America - America did not win the cold war. When you cannot discriminate against blacks, you are not free and you have big problems.
“Deep ecologists” may argue that blacks are returning American cities like Baltimore, Detroit and New Orleans—the city these athletes are nominally playing for—that they are returning these cities harrowed by blacks to a “state of nature.” It is a feral state indeed: let those who advocate non-discrimination against them go and live with them.
RT’s charges of “racism”, compelling Whites and White institutions to leave themselves vulnerable to black aggression - a phenomenon that any fool would instinctively know to be on guard and discriminate against - is unconscionable.
The Alt Right is incredibly naive as it continues to treat The Russian Federation as being in perfect alignment with White Nationalism - its great White hope even: what they are actually doing is serving as free propaganda for a very cynical Kremlin.
RT, “NFL players turned away from London nightclub for being ‘too urban”, 1 March 2017:
A popular London nightclub which allegedly barred a group of American football NFL stars for being “too urban” is being accused of racial profiling.
The New Orleans Saints team members had booked a table at Cirque le Soir nightclub in Soho, but said on arrival the bouncer turned them away for being “six big guys” and “too urban” – a phrase often used as a euphemism for black.
The nightclub has since denied it would turn anyone away based on ethnicity, but has a policy of not admitting all-male groups.
Mark Ingram Jr, 27, a running back, was with Sterling Moore, 27, BW Webb, 26, Vonn Bell, 22, all defensive players, and two friends when they tried to get into the club on Monday.
The players were visiting London in preparation for their game at Wembley in October against the Miami Dolphins as part of the NFL’s international series.
Mark Ingram II
Is this what 6 big “too urban” guys look like?! @CirqueLeSoir @TheVonnBell7 @SterlingMoore @OhGi_3Dawg3 @burtleyc @Flintsbadguy #AllSmiles
2:10 AM - 28 Feb 2017
Ingram tweeted: “We pull up to Cirque le Soir where we have reservations and this is what they tell us. They told us we were ‘six big guys’ that are too ‘urban’ but nobody taller than 5’11!”
Following the tweet, the hashtag #TooUrban began trending on Twitter. Many have accused the club of racial profiling.
@MarkIngram22 one of the #toourban “big guys” next to my 5’7” daughter…ooooh he’s so scary. @CirqueLeSoir your moms didn’t
Thanks to everyone for support! Historical socioeconomic and racial prejudices still impact society. I’m from Flint, proud to be #TooUrban
10:47 PM - 28 Feb 2017
Sly Gemstone @SlyGems
Thanks to everyone who has reached out to us! Stereotyping and discrimination are real in our world. Never let anyone define you! #TooUrban
7:23 AM - 1 Mar 2017
Gillian ‘Slick’ E. @SlickEToffee
#TooUrban So are white British celebs gonna boycott @CirqueLeSoir or do they only stand up against American racism?
12:46 PM - 1 Mar 2017
The club is a favorite with US music stars including Rihanna, Lady Gaga and Kanye West, and actor Leonardo DiCaprio.
In response to criticism, a nightclub spokesperson said: “All of the team at Cirque le Soir are really upset by the suggestion that there was anything malicious in our turning away of Mark Ingram and his friends. We proudly celebrate diversity, not only as part of our shows, but as part of who we are.
“We would not dismiss anyone as ‘too urban’ and we would not turn anyone away on the basis of their ethnicity, sexuality or any other characteristic, other than those expressed in our door policy.
“Admitting an all-male group goes against our policy and is clearly stated on Facebook and all reservation confirmation emails.”
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 01 March 2017 10:45.
At “Killer Culture” Peter Quiggins (Tierney) has put together this very caring and painstaking compilation of native Britons killed by migrant peoples, murders which have not received a fraction of the attention that the rare instance of a murder of a black, Steve Lawrence, by native Britons, has received. It is a quibble compared to this travesty that Quiggins addresses, but something to note nevertheless, that entitling the piece “Diversity Kills!” is a bit of mistake. Just like arguing “against equality” is bad tact, arguing against “diversity” is a trick that the YKW have set up deliberately because by default, under the powers that be, you are arguing for integration - the last thing that we’d want. Diversity should not be argued against at this point, the circumstances being what they are, with massive immigrant populations among, or in close proximity to ours not going away any time soon; in some cases, never - and all the more reason to take the cause of diversity for ourselves. However, his subtitle is quite fine stand alone: Britons murdered in Britain since the death of Stephen Lawrence:
Stephen Lawrence has been mentioned over 2,000 times in Parliament.
Posted by DanielS on Monday, 27 February 2017 12:13.
Backgrounding & Taken For Granted - Resistance is Futile. Add from Det Nya Landet - translation “Big Mulatto Brother”?
Below is another marketing campaign advert suggesting that “resistance is futile” - this one coming from the EU is a bit more subtle: It is an EU add run in Poland, and it is as if to suggest that blacks are to be taken for granted as a significant component of European history. However, in this instance, the “resistance is futile” message is not spoken, it is in the background - two blacks comfortably sit in the background of the same restaurant scene and a mulatto girl is fore-fronted; thus, backgrounding and taking for granted the interracial relationship of her parents.
The EU is backgrounding the racial integration of blacks, presenting to naive audiences (naive as to the bio-power of an invasive species) or audiences perhaps aware, but not in a position to voice objections (literally the case when these images are whisked-by semi-subliminally), that the place of blacks among them is something to be taken for granted. Resistance is futile, nobody will agree with your objection, it is taken for granted already.
This is a screen shot from a quick add distributed by The European Union and shown in Poland to promote The EU’s “My European History” program. Of seven people in the add, 3 are black. Of the blacks, a mulatto girl is centrally featured in the add, while the other two blacks are placed in the background, taking for granted their place in Europe and its history. The girl’s mulattoness is also a form of backgrounding and taking for granted.
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 21 February 2017 14:47.
Baby Spitter Rezzas Abdulla
Regarding below - I’m taking bets/guesstimates on how long a prison sentence a white man would have got if he had spat in a non-white baby’s face and shouted ‘‘non-white people should not breed!’‘. So far legal advice had told me ‘at least a year’. Such are the double standards under a multi-racial society. Multi-racial societies in any case are only the stepping stone to the extinction of one race, and the double standards against whites emphasize that for those too foolish to otherwise realise it, and also indicates just which race is being marked for extinction. - Jez Turner
Subject: Remove Judge Darren Preston for freeing Mr Abdulla after a racist attack on baby. Sign petition e mail on.
Rezzas Abdulla spat into a 9 month-old baby’s face & shouted ‘white people shouldn’t breed’ in a sickening race-hate assault in South Shields. Judge Darren Preston allowed Abdulla to walk free from court. We the undersigned demand Judge Preston be removed as a judge.
Click this link to sign the petition “Remove Judge Darren Preston for freeing Abdulla after a racist attack on baby”
Remove Judge Darren Preston for freeing Mr Abdulla after a racist attack on baby
Rezzas Abdulla spat into a 9 month-old baby’s face & shouted ‘white people shouldn’t breed’ in a sickening race-hate assault in South Shields. Judge Darren Preston allowed Abdulla to walk free from court. We the undersigned demand Judge Preston be removed as a judge.
The court heard that Layla-Jeam, now almost two, was taken to the doctor after the attack for tests amid fears she could have contracted TB. Metro 21 Feb
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 16 February 2017 22:00.
...along with Trump, adores Putin and Le debt, er, Le Pen.
Active Measures is playing the right populist card across The US and Europe and The Alt Right is distributing their propaganda enthusiastically.
Vincent Law, another one coming from a perspective down on Britain, while fancying an expansive bridge between Germany and Russia, registers his enthusiasm for Trump, Putin and le Pen in this regard.
Original article, Russia Insider. Translation, Vincent Law.
AltRight, “Russia’s “Alt Right” Ecstatic About Trump”, 17 Feb 2017:
The author is director of the Liberty Institute, a Russian think tank, and a senior official in the Motherland (Rodina) party, a conservative party represented in Russian parliament.
The popularity of the new US president among Russian New Right patriots seems, at first glance, to be something of a paradoxical phenomenon. However it is in fact, a continuation of an old Russian custom. Russians have a tradition of taking foreign ideas concerning politics as their own, adapting them to Russia.
It all started back in the days of Prince Vladimir- (whose historical memory is experiencing a Renaissance in Russia.) Vladimir, for political, economic and military reasons, embraced the faith and order of the neighboring Byzantine Empire, laying the foundation for the future concept of a “Third Rome.” It was Vladimir who carried out large-scale social and political reforms, influenced by ideas taken (this time) from the East.
The next major political and social import came from the West. Peter the Great “opened a window into Europe” as the saying goes when he established the city of St. Petersburg. He immediately began importing Dutch and German culture into Russia.
Soon after, French influence began to influence Russian society. The Russian aristocratic class began to speak almost entirely in French. Even on the eve of the War of 1812, Napoleon Bonaparte enjoyed incredible popularity among the Russian officers that were arrayed against him. What is remarkable is that Napoleon was probably more popular then among Russians than Trump is now. But this did not prevent the Russian people from going out to stop Napoleon’s invasion and eventually going on to march all the way to Paris.
Moving along through history, the Decembrists in 1825 picked up many ideas from the French and American revolutions as a result of their time in the West after the defeat of Napoleon. Liberty, equality and fraternity; the republic and nationalism, populism and aristocracy. They eventually would go on to unsuccessfully lead an officer’s coup in Russia in the name of these principles.
Then of course came the events of 1917. The February Revolution was imbued with the spirit of both the French Revolution and the pathos of the English parliamentary system…even if the end result resembled neither. And the October Socialist Revolution bore the hallmark of German and American ideological strains (old Russian patriots in this case like to focus on the Jewish roots of the Bolshevik movement, but I’m putting that detail aside for now). The theory of the Bolsheviks was imported from Germany (Marx and Engels). And the pace of the public-political movement was borrowed from the United States. Trotsky admired America quite a bit, and believed that the revolution would not have been possible without America’s help.
Many Third Position philosophers in Europe considered the United States and the Soviet Union to be two sides to the same coin. They referred to both entities as “mondialist” (which is similar to the term “globalist” which is more in vogue now.)
In turn, the Russian White Army exiles of the 20s and 30s borrowed many ideas from the European Right. But unlike the Russian Bolsheviks, the Russian White Army exiles never succeeded in bringing reforms to Russia based on these Third Position principles.
Then came Gorbachev’s perestroika program and Yeltsin’s democratic reforms, where the Western model was imported wholesale to Russia- even if it was never quite fully adopted. During that period, even the Russian opposition youth movements tried to adopt Third Position ideas from the first half of the 20th century.
Therefore, the current Russian fascination with Trump and Le Pen is quite normal for Russia. The American and French populist right-wing alternative movements serve as inspiration for Russian patriots just as previous historical movements have throughout all of Russia’s history. Only now, there is an interesting new element in the relationship. There is a mirror-effect where patriots in the West seem to have taken a great liking to President Putin as well. He seems to be especially popular among the so called “Alternative Right”.
We don’t yet know how Trumpism and Le-Penism will be adapted and adopted in Russia. But now it is clear from Trump’s victory, the potential success of Le Pen, and the rise of Eurosceptic parties all over Europe that things have finally started to go our way. All signals from the West are clear to the Russian New Right. They read: “Alternatives exist & victory is possible.”
“Everything will change, right here and right now” – Trump said in his inaugural speech. He was speaking to the American people, but his message was heard loud and clear in Russia as well. To everyone in Russia, in whose veins “flows the red blood of patriots,” a new day has come.
The Alternative Right everywhere is ablaze with excitement at Trump’s victory.
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 12 February 2017 03:49.
TomDispatch: “Is President Trump Headed for a War with China?” All Options Are “On The Table” - Rajan Menon, 12 Feb 2017:
Forget those “bad hombres down there” in Mexico that U.S. troops might take out. Ignore the way National Security Adviser Michael Flynn put Iran “on notice” and the new president insisted, that, when it comes to that country, “nothing is off the table.” Instead, focus for a moment on something truly scary: the possibility that Donald Trump’s Washington might slide into an actual war with the planet’s rising superpower, China. No kidding. It could really happen.
Let’s start with silver-maned, stately Rex Tillerson, Donald Trump’s pick for secretary of state. Who could deny that the former ExxonMobil CEO has a foreign minister’s bearing? Trump reportedly chose him over neocon firebrand John Bolton partly for that reason. (Among other things, Bolton was mustachioed, something the new president apparently doesn’t care for.) But an august persona can only do so much; it can’t offset a lack of professional diplomatic experience.
That became all-too-apparent during Tillerson’s January 11th confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He was asked for his view on the military infrastructure China has been creating on various islands in the South China Sea, the ownership of which other Asian countries, including Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei claim as well . China’s actions, he replied, were “extremely worrisome,” likening them to Russia’s annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula, an infraction for which Russia was slapped with economic sanctions.
The then-secretary-of-state-designate — he’s since been confirmed, despite many negative votes — didn’t, however, stop there. Evidently, he wanted to communicate to the Chinese leadership in Beijing that the new administration was already irked beyond measure with them. So he added, “We’re going to have to send China’s leaders a clear signal: that, first, the island building stops and, second, your access to those islands is not going to be allowed.” Functionally, that fell little short of being an announcement of a future act of war, since not allowing “access” to those islands would clearly involve military moves. In what amounted to a there’s-a-new-sheriff-in-town warning, he then doubled down yet again, insisting, slightly incoherently (in the tradition of his new boss) that “the failure of a response has allowed them to just keep pushing the envelope on this.”
All right, so maybe a novice had a bad day. Maybe the secretary-of-state-to-be simply ad-libbed and misspoke… whatever. If so, you might have expected a later clarification from him or from someone on the Trump national security team anyway.
That didn’t happen; instead, that team stuck to its guns. White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer made no effort to add nuance to, let alone walk back, Tillerson’s remarks. During his first official press briefing on January 23rd, Spicer declared that the United States “is going to make sure we defend our interests there” — in the South China Sea, that is — and that “if those islands are in fact in international waters and not part of China proper, then yes, we are going to make sure that we defend international territories from being taken over by one country.”
And what of Trump’s own views on the island controversy? Never one to pass up an opportunity for hyperbole, during the presidential campaign he swore that, on those tiny islands, China was building “a military fortress the likes of which the world has not seen.” As it happened, he wasn’t speaking about, say, the forces that Hitler massed for the ill-fated Operation Barbarossa, launched in June 1941 with the aim of crushing the Red Army and the Soviet Union, or those deployed for the June 1944 Normandy landing, which sealed Nazi Germany’s fate. When applied to what China has been up to in the South China Sea, his statement fell instantly into the not-yet-named category of “alternative facts.”
Candidate Trump also let it be known that he wouldn’t allow Beijing to get away with such cheekiness on his watch. Why had the Chinese engaged in military construction on the islands? Trump had a simple answer (as he invariably does): China “has no respect for our president and no respect for our country.” The implication was evident. Things would be different once he settled into the White House and made America great again. Then — it was easy enough to conclude — China had better watch out.
Standard campaign bombast? Well, Trump hasn’t changed his tune a bit since being elected. On December 4th, using (of course!) his Twitter account, he blasted Beijing for having built “a massive military complex in the middle of the South China Sea.” And it’s safe to assume that he signed off on Spicer’s combative comments as well.
In short, his administration has already drawn a red line — but in the way a petulant child might with a crayon. During and after the campaign he made much of his determination to regain the respect he claims the U.S. has lost in the world, notably from adversaries like China. The danger here is that, in dealing with that country, Trump could, as is typical, make it all about himself, all about “winning,” one of his most beloved words, and disaster might follow.
A military clash between Trump-led America and a China led by President Xi Jinping? Understanding how it might happen requires a brief detour to the place where it’s most likely to occur: the South China Sea. Our first task: to understand China’s position on that body of water and the islands it contains, as well as the nature of Beijing’s military projects there. So brace yourself for some necessary detail.
As Marina Tsirbas, a former diplomat now at the Australian National University’s National Security College, explains, Beijing’s written and verbal statements on the South China Sea lend themselves to two different interpretations. The Chinese government’s position boils down to something like this: “We own everything — the waters, islands and reefs, marine resources, and energy and mineral deposits — within the Nine-Dash Line.” That demarcation line, which incidentally has had ten dashes, and sometimes eleven, originally appeared in 1947 maps of the Republic of China, the Nationalist government that would soon flee to the island of Taiwan leaving the Chinese Communists in charge of the mainland. When Mao Ze Dong and his associates established the People’s Republic, they retained that Nationalist map and the demarcation line that went with it, which just happened to enclose virtually all of the South China Sea, claiming sovereign rights.
This stance — think of it as Beijing’s hard line on the subject — raises instant questions about other countries’ navigation and overflight rights through that much-used region. In essence, do they have any and, if so, will Beijing alone be the one to define what those are? And will those definitions start to change as China becomes ever more powerful? These are hardly trivial concerns, given that about $5 trillion worth of goods pass through the South China Sea annually.
Then there’s what might be called Beijing’s softer line, based on rights accorded by the legal concepts of the territorial sea and the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Under the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which took effect in 1994 and has been signed by 167 states (including China but not the United States), a country has sovereign control within 12 nautical miles of its coast as well as of land formations in that perimeter visible at high tide. But other countries have the right of “innocent passage.” The EEZ goes further. It provides a rightful claimant control over access to fishing, as well as seabed and subsoil natural resources , within “an area beyond and adjacent to the territorial sea” extending 200 nautical miles, while ensuring other states’ freedom of passage by air and sea. UNCLOS also gives a state with an EEZ control over “the establishment and use of artificial islands, installations, and structures” within that zone — an important provision at our present moment.
What makes all of this so much more complicated is that many of the islands and reefs in the South China Sea that provide the basis for defining China’s EEZ are also claimed by other countries under the terms of UNCLOS. That, of course, immediately raises questions about the legality of Beijing’s military construction projects in that watery expanse on islands, atolls, and strips of land it’s dredging into existence, as well as its claims to seabed energy resources, fishing rights, and land reclamation rights there — to say nothing about its willingness to seize some of them by force, rival claims be damned.
Subi Reef, being built into an artificial island-landing strip in 2015
Moreover, figuring out which of these two positions — hard or soft — China embraces at any moment is tricky indeed. Beijing, for instance, insists that it upholds freedom of navigation and overflight rights in the Sea, but it has also said that these rights don’t apply to warships and military aircraft. In recent years its warplanes have intercepted, and at close quarters, American military aircraft flying outside Chinese territorial waters in the same region. Similarly, in 2015, Chinese aircraft and ships followed and issued warnings to an American warship off Subi Reef in the Spratly Islands, which both China and Vietnam claim in their entirety. This past December, its Navy seized, but later returned, an underwater drone the American naval ship Bowditch had been operating near the coast of the Philippines.
There were similar incidents in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2009, 2013, and 2014. In the second of these episodes, a Chinese fighter jet collided with a US Navy EP-3 reconnaissance plane, which had a crew of 24 on board, less than 70 miles off Hainan island, forcing it to make an emergency landing in China and creating a tense standoff between Beijing and Washington. The Chinese detained the crew for 11 days. They disassembled the EP-3, returning it three months later in pieces.
Such muscle flexing in the South China Sea isn’t new. China has long been tough on its weaker neighbors in those waters. Back in 1974, for instance, its forces ejected South Vietnamese troops from parts of the Paracel/Xisha islands that Beijing claimed but did not yet control. China has also backed up its claim to the Spratly/Nansha islands (which Taiwan, Vietnam, and other regional countries reject) with air and naval patrols, tough talk, and more. In 1988, it forcibly occupied the Vietnamese-controlled Johnson Reef, securing control over the first of what would eventually become seven possessions in the Spratlys.
Vietnam has not been the only Southeast Asian country to receive such rough treatment. China and the Philippines both claim ownership of Panatag (Scarborough) Shoal/Huangyang Island, located 124 nautical miles off Luzon Island in the Philippines. In 2012, Beijing simply seized it, having already ejected Manila from Panganiban Reef (aka Mischief Reef), about 129 nautical miles from the Philippines’ Palawan Island, in 1995. In 2016, when an international arbitration tribunal upheld Manila’s position on Mischief Reef and Scarborough Shoal, the Chinese Foreign Ministry sniffed that “the decision is invalid and has no binding force.” Chinese president Xi Jinping added for good measure that China’s claims to the South China Sea stretched back to “ancient times.”
Then there’s China’s military construction work in the area, which includes the building of full-scale artificial islands, as well as harbors, military airfields, storage facilities, and hangars reinforced to protect military aircraft. In addition, the Chinese have installed radar systems, anti-aircraft missiles, and anti-missile defense systems on some of these islands.
These , then, are the projects that the Trump administration says it will stop. But China’s conduct in the South China Sea leaves little doubt about its determination to hold onto what it has and continue its activities. The Chinese leadership has made this clear since Donald Trump’s election, and the state-run press has struck a similarly defiant note, drawing crude red lines of its own. For example, the Global Times, a nationalist newspaper, mocked Trump’s pretensions and issued a doomsday warning: “The U.S. has no absolute power to dominate the South China Sea. Tillerson had better bone up on nuclear strategies if he wants to force a big nuclear power to withdraw from its own territories.”
Were the administration to follow its threatening talk with military action, the Global Times added ominously, “The two sides had better prepare for a military clash.” Although the Chinese leadership hasn’t been anywhere near as bombastic, top officials have made it clear that they won’t yield an inch on the South China Sea, that disputes over territories are matters for China and its neighbors to settle, and that Washington had best butt out.
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 09 February 2017 11:00.
“We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children.”
TRI-COLORED TREASON - by David Lane
Afflict me no more with your hypocrisy. If you insist on worshiping your executioner, then depart from me, for it is treason against the White race, against nature, against civilization, and against the Gods.
I have come under attack for articles I have written entitled The Right Wing, Cowards, Liars, Screwballs and David Lane on Religion. Also for naming one of the pro-american, anti-communists who profess to care about the continued existence of the White race. I come now to apologize for naming the specific individual and to admit my error. I will now indict them all.
You tell me you are anti-communist and you care about your White kinfolk? Well it was America who turned several million White men over to the Soviets to be outright murdered or die a slow death in slave camps in 1945. But you love America; is it delusion, cowardice, or race treason?
You tell me you are anti-communist and you care about the survival of the White race? Well, the Germans would have destroyed Communism and provided a secure base for the existence of our race in our European homeland fifty years ago if America hadn’t intervened to save the Soviet Union and destroy our racial saviors. But you love America; is it delusion, cowardice, or race treason?
You tell me you are anti-communist and you care about your fellow White kinfolk? The Soviet enslavement of two hundred million White people would have ended decades ago except for the financial support of America. But you love America; is it delusion, cowardice, or race treason?
You tell me you hate Communism for what it does to White people in the Soviet Union. But Federal judges destroy and terrorize millions of little White children with their forced busing and integration plans, untold thousands of White women are raped by Negroes every year, the White race is now overrun and mixed probably beyond the point of no return, as a policy of the American government, and you love America. Is it delusion, cowardice, or race treason?
You tell me you hate Communism for what it did or what it does to the White people of Rhodesia and South Africa. Well, it was American political and economic pressure that destroyed White Rhodesia and now destroys White South Africa. And you love America; is it delusion, cowardice, or race treason?
It’s a lot safer to talk about those mean, nasty old Communists over there, than to tangle with the head of the snake, the seat of jewish world power, the real murderer of the White race, isn’t it? You could end up dead like Robert Mathews, or in prison forever like the Brüder Schweigen. But then I guess we all choose our own priorities. For some its political, economic or religious systems, and for some it’s the biological existence of the White race, do or die. Get one thing straight all you double thinkers, self deluders, deceivers and dabblers: America is the murderer of the White race, and if we are to have any chance of resurrecting our race while there is still a gene pool to work with then we are going to face reality, discard our delusions, speak of and act on, the single greatest issue of all time, racial survival.
Oh no you say, it isn’t America that’s the head of the snake, the murderer of our race, it’s just that some bad guys grabbed the reins of “our” government a few years or decades ago. I showed you the real history of “your” government, and America’s dominant religion and you ignored me. As always happens when dogma is contradicted by fact, the believers react in the same ways. A few investigate the allegations and accept reality. Others pretend the unpleasant facts don’t exist, and still others fly into a rage directed at those with the effrontery to check belief with reason. Or perhaps you just believe that “ancient history” is of no importance or effect. So let’s discuss present day America.
You are quite correct that the entirety of the entity called America is not necessarily synonymous with the government in power. America is comprised of many interrelated parts and we will consider the most important components that make the whole: (1) Military power; (2) Police power; (3) Economic tenets; (4) Political tenets; (5) Religion; (6) News media; (7) Entertainment media; (8) Sports; (9) Demographics.
When I am through if you are still able to say the words “White American” then leave the company of sane men, for you can no more be both White and American than you can stop the motion of the planets. If you are not an implacable enemy of America, and all it has been and all it is, you are a traitor to the existence of our race. And if you support the aims or continued existence of the political entity known as America then your treason cannot be calculated in the words of mortals.